Grace Theological
Journal 2.1 (Spring, 1981) 59-73.
Copyright © 1981 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
THE PECULIARITIES OF
EPHESIANS AND THE
EPHESIAN ADDRESS
DAVID ALAN BLACK
An important argument in
favor of the encyclical theory of the
epistle to
the Ephesians is based upon the peculiarities found in the
epistle
itself. Yet these unusual features (e.g., the lack of personal
greetings, the
unusual statements in
be satisfactorily
explained in the light of an original Ephesian destina-
tion.
After an examination of early scribal habits and the theme of
the epistle, the author
concludes that the peculiarities of the letter are
not conclusive reasons for
rejecting the strong textual and historical
testimony in
favor of the Ephesian address.
* * *
INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS
THE epistle
which is commonly known as "Ephesians" has in
recent
years been the subject of much critical discussion. The
chief
question about the Ephesian letter is its
authenticity: Did the
apostle Paul
write the letter, as the epistle claims, or is it the work of
an
imitator? Of lesser importance, but related to the previous ques-
tion, is the problem of the address of the Ephesian epistle. To whom
was the
letter written?
Since the second century, the letter has been universally known
as the
Epistle of the Ephesians. Many modern scholars, however, in
view of
the omission in several manuscripts of the words “in
(e]n ]Efe<sw) in
1: 1, have rejected the Ephesian destination. A
widely
held
view, initially proffered by Beza and popularized by Ussher, is
that the Ephesian epistle was not written to any particular church,
but
rather was an encyclical letter to a group of churches in
Minor. The
apostle Paul, therefore, when he penned the letter, left a
blank in
the preface (1:1) which was to be filled in by Tychicus
as he
distributed
copies to the various churches. In this scheme, the reading
60 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
of the Textus Receptus goes back to a
copy sent to
the
Alexandrian manuscripts p46, א, and B stem from a
copy in which
the
blank had never been filled up. It is hypothesized that since the
epistle was
distributed from
sians, and the words “in
their way
into the majority of manuscripts.1
Arguments in favor of this view are presented in various ways by
its
proponents. When condensed and combined, the main lines of
evidence
appealed to in support of the encyclical theory are the
following:
1. The omission of e]n ]Efe<sw in 1: I is supported by the oldest
Greek
manuscripts of the Pauline epistles: p46, א, and B. These
Alexandrian
codices are generally considered to be the most reliable
authorities to
the text of the NT, and to many, almost always
preserve the
original reading.
2. Several early Church Fathers can be cited in support of the
omission of e]n
]Efe<sw. Origen did not know of the words in his text.
Marcion
attributed the epistle to the Laodiceans. Basil said
that he
was aware of
old manuscripts which did not contain e]n ]Efe<sw.
Though there
is disagreement on the point, the Latin Father Tertul-
lian may not have known the words in his text.2
3. The impersonal style of the letter is inexplicable if the
epistle
was
addressed to the Ephesian church. This argument is
based on
internal
evidence from the epistle itself. Thiessen gives the
evidence
for it
in detail:
The internal
evidence strongly supports Aleph, B, and 672. It
would be strange indeed for Paul to say to the
Church at
he knew of their conversion only by report (
spent three years with them (Acts
strange for him to say that
this church knew him only by hearsay (3:2)
and that they must judge by what he had
written as to whether or not
God had
given him a revelation of the truth (3:2-4). It would also seem
strange that he should send no
greetings to a church that he knew so
1E. Gaugler, Der Epheserbrief(Zürich: EVZ-Verlag,
1966) 4. Cf. H. C. Thiessen,
Introduction to the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 243-44.
2The actual statements of these Fathers may be found in T. K.
Abbott, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the
Ephesians and to the
Colossians (ICC; Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1897) ii-iii. As far as
the testimony of
Tertullian goes,
the problem is his use of the word titulum. Did he intend for it to
refer to the superscript of
the epistle or to the prescript of 1: I? A good discussion
of this question is offered
by G. Stoeckhardt, Commentary on
the Ephesians, trans. Martin S. Sommer
(St. Louis: Concordia, 1952) 14-17.
BLACK: EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN ADDRESS 61
intimately. As Findley says: “Not
once does he address his hearers as
‘brethren’ or ‘beloved’; ‘my brethren’ in Eph.
copyists. There is not a single
word of familiarity or endearment in the
whole letter. The benediction at the end (
person, not in the second as
everywhere else.”3
Metzger adds
that the epistle does not deal with the mistakes, needs,
or
personalities of one individual congregation.4
These writers main-
tain that a letter written by Paul to his
beloved
contain
personal references and greetings. Since these features are
absent, the
epistle could not have been intended solely for the church
at
The arguments in support of the encyclical theory at first appear
to be
very convincing. However, the view is open to numerous
objections. Of
major importance is the fact that there is absolutely no
textual
evidence to support the suggestion that Paul left a blank space
for the
addresses of the various churches after the words “who are”
(toi?j ou#sin). The reading preserved in p46, א, B, and others shows
only an
uninterrupted sequence of words. This reading, however, is
most
unnatural, and it is obvious by comparison with the other
Pauline
epistles that after toi?j ou#sin a geographical designation is
intended to
be read. Unless one is willing to resort to an emendation
of the
text,5 the only candidate with textual attestation for the
original
address is the reading e]n ]Efe<sw supported by the great
majority of
Greek manuscripts (including Alexandrinus and several
other
Alexandrian witnesses), the entire phalanx of ancient versions,
and most
early Fathers. It is, furthermore, the only address supported
by
ecclesiastical tradition. No other church (or group of Asian
churches)
ever claimed the epistle for itself. The only
exception to this
3Thiessen, Introduction, 243.
4Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its
Background, Growth, and
Content (New York: Abingdon, 1965) 235.
5 James P.
1949] 225-26) suggests that after toi?j ou#sin the numeral e]ni is to be read. Other
conjectures are the following: A. van Roon (The
Authenticity of Ephesians, trans. S.
Prescod-Jokel [
kai>
Laodikei% pistoi?j e]n Xrist&? ]Ihsou? ("The Text of
Ephesians 1:1, “NTS 15
[1968-1969]
248). Richard Batey
thinks ou#sin is a corruption of ]Asi<aj (“Critical—
The
Destination of Ephesians,” JBL 82. [1963] 101). Though none of these emendations are
unreasonable, the principal objection is over the validity of such a procedure in a
passage where a reading with good documentary support is extant. A good
critique of
the conjectural readings in 1:1 is found in a recent article by
Ernest Best, “Ephesians
1:1” (Text
and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew
Black, eds. Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson [
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 62
tradition is
the claim of the heretic Marcion that the letter was
addressed to
the Laodiceans, an assertion that Tertullian
insisted was
attributable to Marcion’s propensity to “tamper” (interpolare) with
the
text.6 Thus if the words “in
view that
the epistle was addressed and sent to the church at
is
correct and must be accepted, regardless of whatever interpretive
problems this
may produce.
What of these frequently cited internal objections to the Ephe-
sian address? Can they be answered if the
traditional view is upheld?
Those who
favor the reading of the Chester Beatty papyrus and early
uncials are
convinced that the general nature of the epistle is the final
argument for
their position. There are, however, many scholars who
see no
contradiction at all between the epistle’s unusual features and
the inclusion of the words “in
article the
writer would like to suggest simple alternative interpreta-
tions for the lack of personal greetings, the
peculiar statements in
address in
the hope of showing that there is no necessary
contradic-
tion between these features and the
traditional view, and that, in fact,
these
peculiarities may possibly best be
understood in the light of an
Ephesian destination.
THE UNUSUAL FEATURES OF
EPHESIANS
On the surface, it appears strange indeed that Paul would include
no
greetings in an epistle addressed to a church in which he had
served for
nearly three years. The facts, however, seem to present us
with a
different situation. Lenski, for instance, calls the
arguments
from the
impersonal style of the letter “unconvincing.”7 He
points out
that 2
Corinthians, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians all lack
personal
greetings, yet all were written to congregations founded by
Paul, as was
the church at
the
Romans has more greetings than any other epistle of Paul, yet
this
church was not founded by the
apostle. Of the nine Pauline
epistles
which are addressed to churches (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and
Philemon
being excluded), five lack personal greetings (2 Corin-
thians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and
Ephesians), and four
contain them
(Romans, 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and Philippians,
this
latter epistle not mentioning any individuals by name). Lenski
writes:
6Adv. Marc., V 17, quoted by Brook Foss Westcott,
Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950) xxiii.
7R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of
Ephesians
and to the Philippians (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1951) 334.
BLACK: EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN ADDRESS 63
Why this difference? This is the real question and not the one
regarding Ephesians alone. A
blanket answer regarding the five cannot
be given. Each letter stands by itself
whether it is with or without
greetings from or to individuals
or from churches. That means that we
can give only very tentative and partial
answers to the questions as to
why five letters are minus greetings, why
four have greetings, and why
these greetings are what they are, in one
letter (Romans) a long list, in
one only a summary (Philippians), both of
these letters being different
from the other two as far as greetings are
concerned. As regards
Ephesians,
personal greetings are not missed by those who see the
exalted subject and tone of the
epistle.8
Lenski, in
another place, concludes:
Therefore, the presence or absence of greetings determines neither
whether a congregation was
founded by Paul nor whether a letter
written by him is intended for
only one or for several congregations
whether these were founded by
him or not.9
In a similar vein, Guthrie discusses the remarkable number of
personal
greetings in the Roman epistle, a phenomenon which has
prompted some
scholars to conclude that chapter 16 of Romans was
originally sent
to
In the
course of that discussion he makes the following observation:
There would be no parallel if this long series of greetings were
sent
to a church such as
occasion when he appended many
personal greetings was when writing
to
policy to single out any
individuals in churches that he knew well since
he considered all the Christians to be his
friends. But in a church like
commendation that so
many of the Christians there were his former
acquaintances.11
In other
words, it seems that the better Paul knew a church to which
he was
writing, the fewer personal greetings he included.
If Guthrie's observation is correct, and there is no reason to
doubt it,
one should expect a noticeable lack
of personal greetings in
8Ibid., 684-85.
9Ibid., 334.
10Donald Guthrie, New
Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1975)
400-404.
11Ibid., 401. Harry Gamble, Jr. (The
Textual History of the Letter to the Romans [
Eerdmans, 1977] 48) writes: “Are these greetings not rather the exception which prove the rule:
Individuals are not greeted in letters to
churches with which Paul is personally acquainted.”
64 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
an
epistle written by Paul to a church he had founded and in which
he had
served for three years. Thus the argument for the encyclical
theory
based on the lack of personal greetings in Ephesians can be
logically used
to yield the opposite result.
The other features of the epistle are also explainable. The fact
that Paul
“heard” of their faith (
intelligence.12 Years had gone by since Paul had been in
the
meantime, the congregation no doubt had grown, and there were
probably many
new members whom Paul did not know personally
when he
wrote this epistle. This verse may be a reference to them. Yet
another
possibility exists. Paul could write to people whom he had
never met
that he had heard of their faith (
say to
his friend and co-worker (sunergo<j) Philemon, “I hear of your
love, and
of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus, and
toward all
the saints” (Philemon 5). Lenski writes in this
regard: “One
may hear
about persons whom one has never met (the Colossians) as
well as
about persons whom one has met (the Ephesians, Phile-
mon).13 For Paul, therefore, to say that he had
“heard” of these
believers’
faith and love does not necessitate the conclusion that he
had not
previously known them. The verse can easily be interpreted
as a
reference to the progress of the Ephesian Christians
since Paul's
departure from
Eph 3:2 is another verse which is often used to support the
circular
hypothesis, where Paul writes, “…if indeed you have heard
of the
stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you.”
The focus
here is upon the words “if indeed you have heard” (ei@ ge),
which seem
to imply that the recipients of this letter had
not heard all of this. The force of ei@ ge, however, is not doubt, but
certainty. Hendriksen writes:
A strict literal translation of what Paul
actually writes is perhaps
impossible in English. The nearest to it would be
something like this:
“If, indeed, you have heard.” Cf. A. V., “If ye have heard”; A.R.V., “If
so be that ye have heard.” However, that type of rendering will
hardly
do, since it might suggest that Paul is questioning whether or not
the
Ephesians, by and large, have ever heard about the
task committed to
him by his Lord.14
12Charles Hodge, A Commentary
on the Epistle to the Ephesians (
Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1856) xii.
13Lenski, Ephesians, 388.
14William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Ephesians
(Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1967) 151.
BLACK:
EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN ADDRESS 65
Lenski
agrees:
It is difficult to imitate the little intensifying ge in English; our
“indeed” is a little too strong. The condition of reality
with its gentle
particle [sic] states the matter
in a mild and polite form: “if, indeed,
you have heard” (the Greek is satisfied with
the aorist “heard,” the
simple past fact), meaning: I know that you have.15
Therefore, Hendriksen prefers to translate the words ei@ ge h]kou<sate
“for surely you have heard”,16 so
as to avoid implying that they had
not
heard the apostle. Or, as Vincent says, “the words are a reminder
of his
preaching among them.”17
The words ei@ ge
… h]kou<sate appear again in
you have
heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in
Jesus.” To
some, this verse indicates that the readers of this epistle
had not
learned Christian truths through Paul and therefore shows
that Paul
could not have been writing to the Ephesians. Yet here
again,
Paul is net implying doubt, but certainty, in his remark.
Vincent
says: “The indicative mood implies the truth of the supposi-
tion: If
ye heard as ye did.”18 Furthermore, the emphasis of Paul's
statement is
upon the teaching of Christ in contrast to the teaching of
men. But
Paul is not stating here that he had never instructed these
believers or
that he did not know them personally. When Paul wrote
to
congregations with which he was not personally acquainted, he
always
mentioned that fact.19 Of the thirteen Pauline epistles, only
two
epistles fit into this category.(unless Ephesians be admitted):
Romans and Colossians. In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul specif-
ically mentions his desire to visit them and to
see them for the first
time
(1:8-15). In Colossians, Paul writes: “For I want you to know I
how
great a struggle I have on your behalf, and for those who are at
(2:1). Yet, in the Epistle to the Ephesians there is nothing even
similar
to
this.
The argument that points out that Ephesians does not deal with
the
mistakes, needs, or personalities of a single congregation, and
therefore is a
circular letter, is also explainable and may be dealt with
briefly. As
far as mistakes or needs are concerned, Tenney points
out
15Lenski, Ephesians,
465-66 [italics added].
16Hendriksen, Ephesians, 151. Cf. The New
English Bible, “for surely you have heard.”
17Marvin R. Vincent, Word
Studies in the New Testament (
Eerdmans, 1965), 3. 380.
18Ibid., 394.
19See Stoeckhardt, Ephesians, 22.
66 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
that
Ephesians was not written to novices in the Christian faith, but
to
those who had achieved some maturity in Christ.20 Lenski notes
that
there was little need for correction in this epistle because Paul
had
received only good news from
This explains the general character of Paul's letter. Ephesians is
unlike any other of Paul's
letters in that it treats a great subject for the
sole purpose of edification only.21
As far as Paul's personal interest in the Ephesian
church goes,
the
Apostle does mention that Tychicus was to make an
oral report
about
Paul’s condition and plans to the recipients of the letter. The
very
wording of Eph 6:21-22, being almost identical to Col 4:7-8,22
implies that
Paul had a definite church in mind when he wrote the
epistle.
Referring to these two passages, Stoeckhardt writes:
To every unprejudiced reader these words clearly convey the
following facts: Paul had
entrusted to his faithful co-laborer Tychicus
both of these Letters, the one to the
Colossians, the other to the
Ephesians,
in order that he should deliver them to those for whom the
Letters were
intended, and Paul had also given Tychicus a
companion,
Onesimus, who was to return to
his master in Colosse. No one doubts
that Tychicus did
exactly that with which he had been charged.23
It seems
certain, then, that Tychicus reported Paul’s
condition and
plans to
the Ephesian church, just as he did in Colosse. Could this
not be
an indication of Paul's personal concern for the believers in
It may be seen, therefore, that the “unusual”features
of this
epistle can
be understood just as easily, if not more easily, by holding
to the
traditional view. As a result, proponents of the Ephesian
destination feel
justified in their denial of any contradiction between
the words e]n ]Efe<sw and the contents of the letter. Assuming,
however,
that the Ephesian Christians were the epistle’s
original
addressees, how
does one account for (1) the textual variation in 1:1,
and (2)
the general nature of the letter? These are valid questions
which must
be addressed. That both of these questions can be
satisfactorily answered in the light of an Ephesian
destination is the
focus of
the remaining discussion.
20Merrill C. Tenney,
New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 318.
21Lenski, Ephesians, 327-28.
22See Hendriksen, Ephesians, 25, for the comparison.
23Stoeckhardt, Ephesians, 25.
BLACK: EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN ADDRESS 67
THE VARIANT
If the Ephesian address is original, is
there any evidence to
explain the
omission of the words e]n
]Efe<sw? The usual reasons for
accidental
omission, such as homoioteleuton, homoioarcton,
itacism,
etc., do not
seem to apply in this case. It is also difficult to explain
the
omission on the basis of an error of the ear, memory, or
judgment. A
remote possibility is that the name “
abbreviated and
somehow in its shortened form overlooked by a
careless
scribe. No evidence exists, however, that Christian scribes
ever
accepted into their system of contractions the names of cities.24 If
accidental
omission is ruled out as a plausible explanation for the
shorter
reading, there remains only the possibility of an intentional
omission. But
why would a scribe want to excise these words from his
copy?
Perhaps the most plausible answer to this question is that the
address was
deleted in order to convert the epistle into a catholic
letter. By
the omission of the words e]n ]Efe<sw, the
epistle would lose
its
specific address and thus acquire a more general pertinence. This
hypothesis has
the following arguments in its favor. First, van Roon
has
pointed out that there was a “tendency in ancient Christianity to
stress the
ecumenical validity of the epistles of Paul.”25 This
tendency
may have
prompted the omission of geographical indications in the
Pauline letters. Second, an example of the careful omission of place
names is
actually found in Rom 1:7 and 15. In these verses the ninth
century
majuscule Boernerianus (G) omits the words e]n [Rw<m^ after
toi?j ou#sin. The
editorial committee of the United Bible Societies’
Greek New
Testament interpreted the omission “either as the result of
an
accident in transcription, or more probably, as a deliberate
excision,
made in order to show that the letter is of general, not local,
application.”26 In
this connection, Gamble made a study of the
textual
history of Romans, an epistle which has been preserved in
three
basic forms: one of fourteen chapters, another of fifteen, and a
third of
sixteen. Both of the shorter forms omit the last chapter,
which is
replete with personal references. Gamble came to the follow-
ing conclusion about this phenomenon:
Therefore the emergence of both the fourteen- and the fifteen-
chapter forms of the text must
be sought at a later point in the
240nly
25Van Roon, Authenticity of Ephesians, 81.
26Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament
(New York: The United Bible Societies, 1971) 505.
68 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
tradition of the letter, and we
have seen that of the various possibilities
only an early effort to “catholicize” the
Roman letter suffices to explain
the origin of the shorter and generalized
textual forms.27
Gamble goes
on to explain that to some scribes of the ancient world
the
Roman epistle could not maintain both a specific address and
catholic
relevance. As a result, the shorter forms of Romans were
created.28
If Gamble’s conclusions are correct, the Roman epistle is a clear
example of
what van Roon mentioned was the tendency in early
Christianity, namely, to make Paul’s epistles catholic. Why could this
same
thing not have happened in Ephesians? The possibility that it
could have
happened is strengthened by the impersonal style and
general
theme of the epistle. On the surface at least, the fact that
Ephesians
contains no personal greetings and addresses itself to the
theme of
the universal church makes the epistle appear that it was
intended for
a wider circulation than
greetings in
chap. sixteen had to be omitted as well as the place
designation in
order to give the epistle a catholic appearance; in
Ephesians,
the form was already suited to such editing.
Interestingly, of the thirteen epistles of Paul, only Romans,
1
Corinthians,29
and Ephesians contain addresses which were tam-
pered with by copyists. The fact that in all
three of these letters the
specific
recipients are omitted in some manuscripts leads Gamble to
write:
It is not difficult to suppose, therefore, that at an early time
Paul's
letters were adapted for more
general use in an unsophisticated and
rather mechanical way by
textual revision which aimed at omitting
specific matter. The short form
of Romans which omits the address can
be understood as a consequence of this
interest, and we probably have
to do with the same cause for the variants
in the addresses of
1
Corinthians (1:2) and Ephesians (1:1), as Dahl has suggested. Accord-
ing to evidence, precisely these three letters enjoyed the greatest
ecclesiastical use in the
late first and early second centuries, and so
would seem to have called for some resolution
of the problem of
particularity.30
27Gamble, Textual History, 128.
28Ibid.
29The variant in 1 Cor 1:2 involves the
transposition and/ or possible omission
of a specific reference to
“Colossians,” but this hardly relates to the
present discussion.
30Gamble, Textual History, 117-18.
BLACK: EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN ADDRESS 69
Gamble is
referring to an article by N. A. Dahl in which he shows
that the
particularity of the Pauline epistles was a major problem in
the
ancient church.31 He points out that for early Christians it was no
easy task
to see how epistles which were written to particular churches
(or individuals) under particular circumstances could be
regarded as
catholic, and
therefore could be read in all the churches as relevant to
believers in
general. In the conclusion of his article, Dahl writes:
I Corinthians, Romans and Ephesians are the three epistles which
are most often echoed in writings of pre-Marcionite Christian authors.
It is
reasonable to assume that these epistles circulated among the
churches before the publication
of a Corpus Paulinum. Each of them, I
would think, was published in separate editions;
in such editions the
particular addresses could be left
out in order to make the letter
“catholic.” Some vestiges of them are still left in the
textual tradition of
the collected corpus.32
Dahl goes on
to show that as the years passed by and these epistles
came to
be published and distributed in the Pauline Corpus, the
problem of
their particularity eased. The epistles of Paul, even the
ones
which dealt with the most particular subject matter (as Phile-
mon), came to be read in all the churches '”as
Scriptures relevant to
the
whole church and not simply as historical documents.”33
Therefore, it may have been no mere coincidence that Ephesians
was one
of the three Pauline epistles to have its address tampered
with.
This letter was uniquely suited to just such an editorial corrup-
tion: it lacks direct personal greetings; its
theme is the universal
church; it
contains certain phrases which en apparence imply catho-
licity. For these reasons, the hypothesis that
the words e]n
]Efe<sw
were
omitted to convert the letter from a specific writing to a
particular
church into a letter intended for all believers may be
accepted as a
plausible explanation for the reading of p46, x, B, and
others.
Then, in the course of time, it came to be generally recognized
that the
letters of Paul, as canonical and therefore catholic, no longer
needed to
be “adapted” for the more general use, and the shorter
format of
the address was rejected. If this hypothesis is correct, the
absence of a place designation, and not its presence,
should be
considered
anomalous.
31Nils A. Dahl, “The Particularity of the Pauline Epistles as a
Problem in the
Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu
Seinem 60. Geburtstag Uberreicht, ed. W.C. van Unnik
(Leiden: Brill, 1962) 261-71.
32Ibid., 270-71.
33Ibid.,271.
70 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
THE GENERAL THEME OF THE EPISTLE
When all the evidence is considered, the peculiarities of the
Ephesian epistle are at least as difficult to explain on the
encyclical
hypothesis as
they are for the Ephesian destination. However, many
writers feel
that a case could be made that the peculiarities of the
epistle are best understood in the light of the
general purpose of the
letter
rather than the encyclical theory. Hodge, for instance, admits
that the
unusual features of the epistle are remarkable, but he goes on
to
point out that “they prove…nothing more than the apostle’s
object in
writing this epistle was peculiar.”34 What was Paul’s purpose
in writing
Ephesians? It seems clear from the general content and
spirit of
the letter that it was not for correction primarily, nor does it
appear that
there were special needs which required attention. Rather,
in
Ephesians Paul seeks to magnify the Christian church and to remind
his
readers of their glorious union with Christ (chaps. 1-3) and of the
duties
which arise from such a union (chaps. 4-6).35 Paul's great subject
is the
church, the universal body of Christ.
As a result, Ephesians is the only epistle in the NT in which the
word
“church” (e]kklhsi<a) means exclusively the universal church
rather than
the local group. Hendriksen expands on this when he
says
that the
term “church” in Ephesians indicates “the totality of those,
whether Jew
or Gentile, who were saved through the blood of Christ
and
through him have their access in one Spirit to the Father (
18).”36
Therefore, the local church at
sense by
this emphasis upon the universal church, which was the
central and
overriding thought of the writer as he penned the letter.
When seen in its historical context, it seems only fitting that
the
apostle Paul
should have chosen the church at
opus magnum on the body of Christ. The Epistle to the
Ephesians
was
composed in A.D. 61 or 62, after many churches had been
founded.
Sitting in his place of confinement in
opportunity to
contemplate the full significance of the new organism
which had
come into being and to formulate for the first time the full
meaning of
the doctrine of the church.37 The question arose, to which
church
should he send the letter, and he chose by the guidance of the
Holy Spirit the assembly of believers at
have
chosen the Ephesian church? Stoeckhardt
writes:
34 Hodge, Ephesians, xii.
35Stoeckhardt, Ephesians,
32-33.
36Hendriksen, Ephesians, 63. This is not
the first time, however, that Paul uses the
word e]kklhsi<a in its general sense.
Cf. Gal
37Tenney, New Testament Survey, 317-18. Cf.
Ernest F. Scott, The
Literature of
the New Testament (New York: Columbia
University, 1933) 184.
BLACK: EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN
ADDRESS 71
The congregation at
and the best indoctrinated congregation of
the Orient. At that time it
was still aglow with its first love. This
congregation was a bright light
in the Lord, which with its beams
illuminated wide stretches of pagan
darkness. It was therefore
entirely proper that the Apostle, her old
teacher, who at present had no
special instruction or admonitions
which he wished to impress upon her, should
remind that congregation
of her high honor and grace, gifts of
Christ, and of her communion
with the
tion of Christ she was to fulfill in the world.38
Thus the
epistle was written to the Ephesians and addressed to them,
but Paul
used a form to emphasize the Ephesian assembly as a
representative of the universal church, rather than as a local church.
This was
appropriate, because for Paul the local church is nothing
more than
the result of the expansion of the one universal church.39
That a single congregation could represent the universal church
is a
point upon which many NT scholars agree. Lohse
Writes:
Whether in the plural number or singular,
whenever the e]kklhsi<a
is spoken of, it is always a matter of the congregating of the
Christian
church as God's holy people. The single church
fails in no way to
perfectly represent the
who are assembled in Thessalonika, Phillipi,
schweig, Gandersheim,
and anywhere else.40
Reicke
agrees:
In fact, Paul is inclined to regard each
local church not only as a
copy in miniature of the universal church, but as being the universal
church itself, realized in this world.41
38Stoeckhardt, Ephesians,
27-28.
39Bo Reicke, “Unite Chretienne
et Diaconie,” Neotestamentica et Patristica (Leiden Brill, 1962) 212.
40”
handelt es sich in der Versammlung der christlichen Gemeinde urn Gottes heiliges Volk.
Der einzelnen Gemeinde fehlt also nichts, urn die Kirche Jesu Christi vollstandig repräsentieren
zu können. Gottes
Volk ist versammelt
in Thessalonich,
Gandersheim und wo immer sonst.” Eduard Lohse,
Die Entstehung
des Neuen Testaments
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972) 192.
41“En effet, Paul est enclin à regarder chaque
église locale, non seulement
comme une
copie en
miniature de l'église universelle,
mais comme étant l'eglise universelle ellemême,
réalisée dans ce monde.” Reicke, “Unité Chrétienne et Diaconie,” 203. Cf. H. Bavinck:
“In de verschillende
plaatselijke vergaderingen der geloovigen komt de ééne gemeente
van
Christus tot openbaring,” Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Kampen,
Netherlands: Kok, 1911), 4. 302.
72 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Really, one
need go no further than the letters of the apostle Paul to
see
this, as, for instance, when he writes to the church at
are the
body of Christ”(1 Cor 12:2). In fact, Paul regarded
the
Corinthian
believers as “the
(1 Cor 1:2). Thus Reicke could
observe: “The totality of the church is
for
it.”42
There is therefore no problem in saying that the epistle was
written and
addressed to the Ephesians, if one also understands that
the
epistle's focus is upon the body of Christians as a class, rather
than upon
the Ephesians as a local church.
“great mother church,” had the right to receive such an
epistle. But in
keeping with
his theme Paul may
have used a style to suit it to all
Christians,
including those in the neighboring churches to whom it
would
invariably be communicated.43 (Perhaps it is in this sense that
the Ephesian epistle should be considered “encyclical,”)44 Thus
the
general
nature of the
epistle does not argue against the Ephesian
address as
such, but rather may simply be in keeping with the general
theme of the epistle.
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
The encyclical theory grew out of the uncertainty regarding the
reading of
1:1 and offers to many the most plausible explanation of
why the two words e]n
]Efe<sw are missing from .such early and note-
worthy
manuscripts as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Because it is sup-
ported by
seemingly unanswerable internal arguments, numerous
scholars are
convinced that this view is the most credible. However,
though much
could be said for such a line of evidence, these
arguments
cannot be considered as conclusive for there are alterna-
tive interpretations for each. All of the
internal objections have been
answered
satisfactorily by capable scholars in the light of an Ephesian
address, In
fact, some of these peculiarities, much more than being
objections to
the Ephesian destination, may instead be taken as
supports for
it. For example, the fact that Ephesians lacks personal
42“La totalité de l’église,
c’est pour
en est seulement
un corollaire.” Reicke,
“Unite Chretienne et Diaconie,”
203.
43Hodge, Ephesians,
xiii.
44Referring to the collection and distribution of the Pauline
epistles, F. F,
Bruce writes:
“But when his letters were published in one corpus
(and even earlier,
if they circulated in smaller collections),
it was because the authority of each, and
of all together, was believed to extend
beyond the first addressees to the Church at
large,” (“New Light on the Origins of the New
Testament Canon,” New Dimensions
in
New Testament Study, eds. Richard Longenecker
and Merrill C. Tenney [Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1974] 10.)
BLACK: EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN
ADDRESS 73
greetings is
apparently more in keeping with Paul's policy than if he
had
attached a long series of greetings, and therefore becomes a
possible
argument in favor of the traditional address.
Furthermore, the textual phenomenon in 1: 1 seems to argue for
the Ephesian address rather than against it. It would appear
that
either the words e]n
]Efe<sw were intentionally added or intentionally
omitted.
From both intrinsic and transcriptional evidence it is not
difficult to
decide in which direction the change went. On the one
hand, the reading e]n
]Efe<sw is characteristically Pauline, and its
omission
would be a singular exception among all of the epistolary
addresses in
the Pauline Corpus. The omission also leaves the text
with
insoluble syntactical problems which make the translation and
interpretation of Ephesians 1: 1 without e]n ]Efe<sw
extremely difficult,
if not
impossible.45 On the other hand, there is good reason to believe
that a
scribe may have omitted the words “in
he
would have given the epistle the appearance of being universally
addressed.
With its absence of personal greetings and its general
theme, the
Ephesian epistle was uniquely suited to just such a
corruption.
In addition, the fact that the epistle’s focus is upon the
universal
church, and
not upon the Ephesians as a local church, does not argue
against the Ephesian destination as such. To proceed from the
impersonal
style of the letter to the conclusion that therefore Paul
could not
have been writing to a local congregation is a non sequitur.
The general
theme of Ephesians provides an adequate explanation for
the
general nature and style of the epistle.
Plausible as the encyclical theory may seem, when the evidence is
considered the
traditional view appears to best account for all the
facts: the
textual variation in 1:1, the non-local flavor of the epistle,
the
universal tradition of the church that the letter was written to the
Ephesians,
and the weighty documentary evidence in support of the
Ephesian address. As a result, it may be concluded that the
peculiar-
ities of the letter are not conclusive reasons
for rejecting the strong
textual and
historical testimony in favor of the Ephesian
destination.
45F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament,
trans.
Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1975) 213.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu